Additional evidence : Permission to bring additional document can be granted in exercise of discretion of Court to achieve ends of justice

The plaintiffs had challenged an order passed by the
learned Single Judge, dated 15th January, 2008 allowing the Chamber Summons
which is taken out by the defendants seeking liberty to lead evidence and to
place on record all documents referred to in the affidavit of documents which
was filed by the defendants. Grievance of the plaintiffs is that after they
had led their evidence, the defendants had specifically informed the Court
that they did not wish to lead any evidence. It is the contention of the
plaintiffs that after having taken a stand not to lead evidence, it was not
open for the defendants to subsequently file application seeking permission of
the Court to lead evidence.

The power to permit the party to lead additional evidence
had been given to the Appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 27. It is settled
position in law that the purpose of procedural law is not to frustrate the
rights of the parties, but the law is primarily to achieve the ends of justice
and fully and finally decide the controversy between the parties.

While interpreting the provisions of the Code, care should
be taken that substantial justice is not sacrificed for hypertechnical pleas
based on strict adherence to procedural provision. In this context, reference
be made to the Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam Dass and Ors vs.
Dominion of India and Ors., reported in (1984) 3 SCC 46. Thus the Appeal
Court is entitled to allow the party to lead additional evidence.

In view of provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 & Order XLI Rule
27, the learned Single Judge has exercised a discretion vested in him and has
permitted the defendants to bring on record any such documents. In the present
case, it has to be noted that affidavit of documents was filed by the
defendants. The documents could not be traced and, subsequently, the
defendants were in a position to procure the said documents and, after an
application for amendment which was filed by the plaintiff was allowed and
permission was granted to the parties to file additional written statement,
the application for production of documents was made and the learned Single
Judge was pleased to allow the said application. Therefore, the order passed
by the learned Single Judge was upheld.

[Smt. Shantibai K. Vardhan & Ors. vs. Ms. Meera G. Patel
& Anr. AIR 2009 (NOC) 904 (Bom).]